The blog belongs to Mr. S.K.Virmani who is associated with Jago Grahak Jago movement across India. RTI Act 2005 is backbone to activism. However, Public Authorities have been avoiding to supply relevant information. I am trying to find answer as to RTI Act 2005 is a Myth or Reality. With a view to ensure transparency, I would be uploading RTI applications and responses from all stakeholders including CIC. Content Copyright Protected

Tuesday, 12 January 2016

Is it the unethical business practices being adopted by State Bank of India?

PSU Banks like State Bank of India may not be lagging behind in adopting to unethical business practices.

As stated earlier, there
have been three appeals before three different First Appellate
Authorities of State Bank of India. Accordingly three different orders
were issued and surprisingly no information has been revealed obviously
to hide the unfair trade practices being done by SBI. First appeal was
brought out in my earlier blog as stated above. The other two First
Appeal are brought herein as FA-II and FA-III. The content of the two articles may be persued which contains RTI applications and three First Appeals before three different First Appellate Authorities.

The Part 2 of the article published on 19th October 2015 concluded with:(It
is evident from the two articles on the subject that State Bank of
India has made joke of RTI Act 2005. The 2nd appeal which lies before
Central Information Commission has been made on 20/02/2015. The
application is yet to come up for hearing. Till then a question arise as
to whether RTI Act is a Myth or Reality as far as State Bank of India
is concerned.)

I am now publishing the copy of my 2nd appeal before Central Information Commission, CIC order and CPIO response subsequent to the CIC order.

2nd Appeal dtd. 20/02/2015 before Central Information Commission

I have submitted
an application dated 01/10/2014 under RTI Act 2005 to State Bank of India. The
information being sought was in respect of SMS Alert services which are
required to be issued by State Bank of India to its account holders as and when
any financial transactions (both credit and debit) take place in the account of
the account holders.

As per RBI directives vide RBI
Notification No. RBI/2013-14/381 DBOD No. Dir.BC.67/13.10.00/2013-14 dated
26/11/2013; the State Bank of India is required to charge the Account Holders
for providing SMS Alert Services on an actual usage basis. I have an account
with State Bank of India and noticed that State Bank of India has been
deducting an amount of Rs. 15/- per quarter from my account irrespective of the
fact whether there has been any transaction or not during the quarter. The SMS
Alert Service is towards sending messages to the Account Holders as and when
any financial transactions in the account take place. It implies that no
message has been sent by the bank if there is no transaction. This practice is
continuing despite RBI directive dated 26/11/2013. The applicant is a consumer
activist and is in possession of a letter from the Department of Financial
Services, Ministry of Finance vide Order No. F.No. 7/72/2014-BOA dated
14/08/2014 directing all PSU Banks to adhere to the directives of RBI
Notification dtd. 26/11/2013. Deducting money form the account of the appellant
despite no transaction in the account leads to believe that the directives of
RBI and Ministry of Finance have still not been implemented and the State Bank
of India seems to be continuing to violate RBI and Ministry of Finance
directives as referred above. I am also a customer of UCO Bank and find that
UCO Bank is charging the customers on the basis of Rs. 0.12/- per SMS for a
transaction. These facts are being brought to the notice of Central Information
Commission with a view that the appellant has a reason to believe that State
Bank of India is adopting to unfair trade practices unless otherwise is
substantiated through the information under RTI Act 2005 and reveal the facts
to the public who might be feeling deceived by such practices. Since the
deduction of amount of Rs. 15/- per quarter is through use of IT Technology it
makes me feel that same practice might be adopted with all their customers. In
view of the foregoing the issue of deducting money from accounts of the account
holders of State Bank of India is of public interest and hence revealing of the
information even if there is any efforts of SBI to take the shelter of
confidentiality or trade secret for iota of the issue is utmost importance in
the interest of public as the account holders numbering to the estimates of 40
to 50 million might be getting deceived by unfair trade practice of State Bank
of India.

The details of the circumstances
leading to preferring 2nd Appeal before Central Information
Commission are stated below:-

(i)I had submitted RTI application
dated 01/10/2014 the copy of which is attached. The application had sought
information pertaining to the Point No. 1(i) to 1(xi). The application was sent
to CPIO, State Bank of India, a PSU Bank and a public authority as well as me
as a customer of SBI is concerned. The cause of the application dated
01/10/2014 supplied wrong information and there were new points which emerged
out of CPIO response to my RTI application dated 28/08/2014.

(ii)It seems that there have been
three different authorities within SBI as far as present application dtd.
01/10/2014 is concerned and hence my application was transferred to other CPIO
of the same public authority form some of the points. Having failed to receive
satisfactory responses from CPIOs, my RTI application dated 01/10/2014
generated three numbers of First Appeals to their respective First Appellate
Authorities as those CPIO could not supply the relevant information for most of
the points pertaining to their jurisdiction. It is shocking that even the 1st
appeals made to all the three First Appellate Authorities failed to supply the
relevant information; I have to prefer 2nd appeal before Central
Information Commission. Since all the three 1st Appeals have emerged
out of a single application under RTI Act 2005 and the subject matter of
information is on a common subject, a combined 2nd Appeal is being
preferred. I request CIC to consider these aspects.

(iii)The points of RTI application
dtd. 01/10/2014 for which either no information has been supplied or partial
and unsatisfactory response are received are 1(i), 1(v), 1(vi), 1(vii), 1(viii),
1(ix), 1(x), and 1(xi).

(iv)My submissions before the 2nd Appellate Authority in the
order of three 1st Appeals are given below.

1.FA-I: 1st
Appellate Authority (Application dated 05/12/2014)- Point No. 1(1) of RTI
application dtd. 01/10/2014; Point No. 1(i) of my
RTI application dated 01/10/2014 requested for supply of “copy of the file noting’s
and movement of my RTI application dated 28/08/2014 and any other related
documents during the period it is received by the concerned CPIO and till the
time it is finally disposed off.” Having not received the said copies of
the documents from CPIO, the 1st Appeal dated 05/12/2014 was
preferred stating at Point 5 and 6 of the said First Appeal dated 05/12/2014
was preferred stating at Point 5 and 6 of the said First Appeal dated
05/12/2014 requesting to supply me the above document including date of file
noting as sought by me in RTI application dated 01/10/2014. The First Appellate
Authority in its Order No. GM (NW-1)/RTI/2014-15/Appeal/167 dated 17/01/2015
stated “The CPIO in directed to provide the information sought by appellant
within 10 days after receipt of this order, if available with him. The CPIOs is
advised to ensure that the matters related to RTI or disposed of strictly as
per the provision of the Act”. However CPIO had not supplied any document
vide his response no. DZO-I/R-4/RTI/360 dated 30/01/2015 in respect to the
First Appellate Authority order and further advised in his above response that
the Appellate Authority for such purpose General Manager, NW-1 State Bank of
India, New Delhi. This advice of CPIO after the decision of 1st
Appellate Authority is in violation of RTI Act 2005 as this letter itself was
in response of FAA Order No. GM (NW-1)/RTI/2014-15/Appeal/167 dated 17/01/2015
as stated in the letter itself. This amount to mislead the applicant and
remaining him without any information. I request CIC to please arrange for the
requisite supply of documents as per RTI application dtd. 01/10/2014 and FA
dtd. 05/12/2014.

2.FA-II: 1st
Appeal dated 29/12/2014 - Point No. 1(vii), 1(viii) and 1(ix) of RTI
application dtd. 01/10/2014; Point No. 1, 2, 3 and
4 of my FA dtd. 29/12/2014 refers to point No. 1 response dtd. 11/02/2015 does
not provide information to the point No. 1 of my FA dtd. 29/12/2014. The
necessary information as relevant to the points of RTI application dtd.
01/10/2014 may please be arranged to be provided.

a.The First Appeal dtd.
29/12/2014 has brought out at Points No. 2 of the 1st Appeal
regarding “Whether SBI is charging customers for sending the SMS informing
……………. From the customer’s account” and information expected was in the
form of Yes/No as there is no other possibility of response. 1st
Appellate Authority had stated “Seeking of ‘Opinion’ from the CPIO in the
form of Yes/No is also not the information under the Section 2(F) of the RTI
Act.” This seems to be avoiding the information as I have sought
information as to whether State Bank of India is charging the customers for
sending the SMS informing customers about the deduction of Rs. 15/- by State
Bank of India towards SMS alert from the customer’s account. This is in no way
seeking “Opinion” This is information as to whether SBI is charging customers
for sending such SMS and there is definite information as to whether SBI is
charging or SBI is not charging. How the 1st Appellate Authority has
considered this to be an opinion? In fact do the State Bank of India is
charging amount for “Opinion”? It is an act of deduction the money which either
is being done or not done. I have nowhere asked for whether it should be
chargeable or not chargeable which could have been termed as seeking opinion.
CIC is requested to please arrange supply of the information from CPIO in the
explicit form.

b.The Point No. 3 of my First
Appeal has sought the information to supply me the true copies of the complete
internal note sheet and any other connected document in regard to
implementation of RBI Notification No. RBI/2013-14/381 DBOD no.
Dir.BC.67/13.10.00/2013-14 dated 26/11/2013. The CPIO did not supply the documents
and the First Appellate Authority had not spoken about it. The RBI order is a
public order, State Bank of India is a public authority, customers are getting
affected and hence the internal note sheets and other connected documents for
the implementation of a public order by the public authority for the public cannot
be rejected on the grounds of the Section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act as stated by
CPIO. The opening paragraph of my present 2nd Appeal is relevant to
the point. SBI is suspected to be doing unfair trade practices amounting to Rs.
300 Crore per year in violation of RBI order and Ministry of Finance directives
and these 300 Crores is being taken out of the pocket of the account holders
which are of general public. The disclosure of the information is of public
interest. The appellant being the account holder of the SBI has come across
such unfair trade practices of SBI. The Central Information Commission is
therefore requested to please arrange for the information as per the Point No.
1(viii) of RTI application and my contentions made at Point No. 3 of my First
Appeal dated 29/12/2014

c.Similarly neither the CPIO
had supplied me the information of supplying me true copies of the internal
note sheets and movements of an Order No. F.No.7/72/2014-BOA dtd 14/08/2014
issued by the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government
of India nor the First Appellant Authority has responded to the appeal. The
Contention made by me at Point No. b above equally applies to the
present point to my 2nd Appeal.

a.Point No. 1(x) and 1(xi) of
my RTI application dated 01/10/2014 sought the information of rates per SMS
being paid by State Bank of India to the SMS vendors and total charges paid by
State Bank of India to SMS vendors for transactional messages and total amount
recovered from the customers form the financial year 2013-14 and for the period
from 1st April 2014 to 30th September 2014. While another
CPIO has furnished the information pertaining to amount charged from the
customers during the listed period, CPIO in reference had denied the
information pertaining to rates being paid to vendor and the amount so paid to
the vendor during the period vide its letter dated 08/12/2014 stating “information
cannot be provided as they are the Third party information and information of
commercial confidence trade secrets or intellectual property the disclosure of
which would harm the competitive position of the Third Party which is exempted
under the Section 8(1)(d) and (j) of RTI Act”. The 1st Appeal has clearly stated
that the applicant is not asking information pertaining to the Third Party. The
information has been requested about the State Bank of India Seeking information
regarding expenditure incurred by the State Bank of India towards sending
transactional message to the SBI account holders. This is not in any way
connected to the Third Party information but is connected to only information
pertaining to SBI which is a public authority itself. I have no where asked the
name of the vendor who is providing the service. This point has been brought
out in Point No. 4 of my First Appeal dated 22/12/2014. No information has been
supplied to me. CIC is requested to please arrange supply of the requisite
information.

b.The Point No. 5 of my First
Appeal dated 22/12/2014 has contended point on commercial secrets as being
referred by CPIO, SBI. In addition to above, SBI is not in the business and
trade of providing SMS services. SBI is in the banking operation. SMS Alert
service is the process in the banking services as per the mandate of RBI to
shoot the SMS as and when any transaction takes place in the account. Sending
SMS to the account holder is not a commercial service where one trade for the
SMS. RBI vide its order dated 26/11/2013 and Ministry of Finance order dated
14/08/2014 stipulated the banks to charge account holders on an actual usage
basis. The account holder has a right as to whether he is being charged on actual
usage basis or on dis-proportionate basis making it as main profit center which
is not the part of the trading activity. It is already stated that there has
not been even a single transaction and SBI deducted Rs. 60/-. Spending no money
on the SMS and charging Rs. 60/- can never be considered as actual usage basis.
It means SBI IS adopting to unfair trade practice in violation of the
regulations of RBI as well as devaluing Ministry of
Finance directives. Since all such operations are being carried out using IT
technology, such practice cannot take place against one account holder implying
that all the account holders are being duped of by the suspected unfair trade
practice of SBI. The revealing of the information as to how much money has been
spent by SBI on the transactional message could not be refused merely on the
grounds of commercial disclosure as brought out by me in the 1st
Appeal and present 2nd Appeal before the Central Information Commission.

In view of the above, I seek the
assistance and order of Central Information Commission in receiving:

(a)The complete information as requested by me in RTI application dtd.
01/10/2014 and as per my First Appeals to SBI’s dated 05/12/2014, 22/12/2014
and 29/12/2014.

(b)The appellant has spent amount of approximately Rs. 3,000/- for
appeals as well as other incidental expenditure including legal fee,
stationary, photocopying and postage, I shall be grateful if Hon’ble Central
Information Commission pas an order for SBI to pay me Rs. 3,000/- as the
information has been denied intentionally with ulterior motives, ignoring the
contentions and suppressing the unethical trade practices being carried out by
SBI as is evident emerging out from the very fact that SBI deducted Rs.60/-
from the account despite there being no transaction. It is surprising that none
of the 1st Appellate Authority or CPIOs have advised for the details
of the 2nd Appellate Authority as laid down in the RTI Act 2005.

The appeal came up for hearing before Information Commissioner Ms. Manjula Prashar on 27/10/2015. However the appeal was being taken up for hearing in a manner as if the appellant was being obliged in a very casual manner and that is reflected from the content of the order. It surprised beyond imagination as to the compulsion of the Information Commissioner for writing the judgement on 26th November for an appeal heard on 27th October 2015 (exactly after a period of one month). Several orders were being brought out on their (CIC) website for the appeal heard much after 27th October 2015. Many many points discussed during the hearing have been left in the order dtd. 26th November 2015.

The order dtd. 26th Novemebr is quoted below:

ORDER

1.ShriS.K.Viarmani,videhisRTIapplicationdated1.10.2014,soughtthecopyoffile
notings and movement of his RTI application dated 28.8.2014 along with other related
documents till the time of its final disposal, details of nine credit and debit
transactions asstated intherespondents’letterdated25.5.2014,detailsofthecontentsofSMSalerts,deliveryreport oftheSMSalerts,wasthereanyminimumlimitfortheamountoftransactionforsendingSMS alert, total charges paid by SBI to SMS
vendor, etc through 11points.

2.The CPIO, vide
his letter dated 22.10.2014, intimated that the information on point 1had beenprovidedvidetheirletter25.9.2014anddidnotprovideanyinformationonrestofthe
points. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority.
The FAA throughhis decisiondated17.1.2015,directedtheCPIOtoprovideinformationonpoint1andadvisedthe
appellant to approach the CPIO & DGM(RTI), SBI, Corporate Centre, Mumbai
for points 3 to11 as he was
satisfied with reply given in point2.

3.Aggrieved with
the decision of the FAA, the appellant made an appeal to the
Commission stating that the response to point 1 was not relevant to what he had
sought. Noneof the points made by
him in his RTI application was responded to. Therefore, he wantedcomplete information as hesought.

4.The matter was
heard by the Commission. The appellant reiteratedhisrequestfor seekinginformationasspecificallysoughtinhisRTIapplication. Therespondentsstatedthat they had provided information as available with them
and they could not providethe
information on the details of rates per SMS paid to SMS vendors and total
charges paid toSMS vendors for the
year 2013-14 as this was third party information involvingcommercial confidence, trade secrets, etc.
disclosure of which was exempt u/s 81d and j of the RTIAct.

5.After hearing both the parties, the
Commission directs the CPIOto:

(i)revisit point 1of the RTI application
andreply;

(ii)provide information/copy of
instructions as available with reference to point 5,6 and 7 of RTIapplication;

(iii)give total
charges paid for SMS during the year2013-14 within 10 days of the receipt of the order of theCommission.

6.The Commission
also advises the CPIO to ensure providing point wise information.The appeal is disposedof.

(ManjulaPrasher) InformationCommissioner

CPIO responded to the CIC order vide letter No. DZO-I/R-4/RTI/218 dtd. 07/01/2016 without furnishing any information. The persual of the letter will raise many question about the common understanding of simple English the most prominent being the hiding of the information for even those points for which CIC has directed State Bank of India to provide the information. It is well common saying that there is a purpose behind hiding the information and if the crucial information of public interest is kept hidden, the very suspicion leads to saying that State Bank of India is adopting to Unethical Business Practices and I feel almost all readers would agree to the contention. Since the market rates of SMS are known and could be well imagined that the SBI is generating Rs. 300 crore annually unethically, cheating the consumers.

The content of the stated letter from CPIO, State Bank of India is reproduced:

APPEAL
NO. CIC/MP/A/2015/000572

With reference to the above, in this connection,
we advice as under:

(1) Point 1 revisited and reply is as
below:

RTI dated 28/08/2014 was received at Post
Office, Post Master grade I, AGCR, Post Office New Delhi on 28/08/2014 vide
number 04.They forwarded the RTI to SBI, university of Delhi Branch vide their
letter No.AGCR/RTI/SK Virmani/O 17-15 On 28/08/2014 and the copy of the same
was also sent to you . This RTI application was received by SBI, University of Delhi
Branch on 30/08/2014. SBI Delhi University branch transferred the RTI
application to Regional Manager/CPIO/SBI/Region 4, DZO I, New Delhi vide their
letter No.AGM/DU/2013-14 dated 30/08/2014, as the account of Sh.Virmani
pertains to Hindu College Branch Which was under the administrative control of undersigned.
The information was sought from Branch Manager, Hindu College vide letter
No.DZO-I/R4/RTI/40 dated 04/09/2014. The Branch has responded vide their
No.BM/HC/2014-15/95 dated 15/09/2014 and finally a reply was send to the
application vide letter No.DZO-I/R-4/RTI/193 DATED 25/09/2014.

(2) The reply was already provided to the
Appellant by our Corporate Center Mumbai vide letter No RTI/3213 dated
18/12/2014.

(3) The reply was already provided to the
Appellant by our Corporate Center Mumbai vide letter No RTI/3213 dated
18/12/2014.

(It makes me to believe that RTI Act is myth at least for State Bank of India being public authority)